Teaching religion: my students are trying to run my course

[cbayer]

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/feb/08/academics-anonymous-teaching-religion-student-experience

Evangelical students cannot tolerate diversity of opinion and resist secular critiques of their views. My job is no longer the joy it once was

Anonymous academic
Guardian Professional, Saturday 8 February 2014 10.00 GMT


Adam and Eve, by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1526): my students take a literal approach to religious teachings. Photograph: Getty Images

I'm a senior academic in a religion department at a Russell Group university. Before you ask, no, we're not training would-be vicars. And no, we're not in the business of promoting particular faiths.

In fact, I'm an atheist (always have been), and my motivating "belief" as an academic is that the secular study of religions is a crucial activity in any university.

You don't need to be a disciple of Richard Dawkins (and I'm certainly not) to realise religion continues to play a major role in contemporary societies and cultures, whether we like it or not. But those interested in religion need to be able to engage with it by deploying an intellectual and critical rigour that reading Dawkins' God Delusion simply cannot offer.

When I first started teaching in my current institution, a decade or so ago, I was impressed by the diversity of students in lectures. Lots were believers of one sort or another, but many others would describe themselves as atheists and agnostics.

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. So, what...did you post this only because

he takes a few (anonymous) potshots at Dawkins? Because he certainly offers nothing of import and nothing remotely new or original in terms of "intellectual and critical rigor" that would warrant wasting bandwidth. Or was it his bowing at the altar of "diversity" that got you all excited? WTF does it even mean to say "I was impressed by the diversity of students in lectures"?

[KurtNYC]

2. The author documents his own experiences with teaching a college course on religion in the UK

for the last ten years. Says there is diversity within the students but it is increasingly muted by a louder group of evangelicals.

I don't understand the rudeness of your response.

[skepticscott]

4. The author seems determined to say, in effect

"I'm an atheist, and I'm so much better as an atheist than Richard Dawkins". And even that isn't particularly original. Every hack atheist who gets column space on Salon of Huff Post seems to want to make the same claim.

Seriously, could they not describe their own experience without taking (anonymous) potshots at someone else? I don't understand the rudeness of THEIR response. Nor the vacuity. The claim (which they make while trying to puff themselves up at the same time) that the version of religion that Dawkins and other prominent anti-theists tear down is just a caricature that is not held by any actual people, has been debunked rather thoroughly, as this (anonymous) person should know, if they have been paying any attention to the things they presume to opine on. And as you'd think their own experience described here would have told them.

The OP has a long history of visceral hatred for Richard Dawkins, so calling into question the motivation behind posting this article is more than appropriate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Well, I was about to post it because it shows evangelicals bullying others

A female colleague was accused of being "stupid" and "lacking authority" by those who believe a woman has no right to teach others about religious texts.

Other colleagues have been marked out as heretics in lectures. Of the students who remain outside this group – identifying as atheist, agnostic, Catholic or Jewish – a number have confided they feel intimidated or silenced by the louder, assertively evangelical students in the class.

This is very worrying - this is one of the top universities in Britain (the 'Russell Group' is 24 leading universities - pretty much all the best all-rounders in Britain), and this is a sign of pressure to turn an unbiased academic course which could study any religion and criticise it into one which would leave a type of Christianity as having special status, and introducing misogyny to boot.

[skepticscott]

5. Which, as noted, is nothing new or original

Dawkins and others have been pointing out the inordinate influence of fundamentalists in religion for a long time, and have been upbraided by people like this for (supposedly) attacking a caricatured and unrealistic version of religion. Ironic, then, that this anonymous person feels the need to take potshots at Dawkins for his tone and lack of intellectual rigor, while opining on something he's been way out ahead of them on for years. All the while being blithely oblivious to the fact that they, as an atheist, might not be where they are, or in a position to bash fundamentalists with impunity (even anonymously) if not for the ground laid by Dawkins and others like him over the last couple of decades.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. No, it is new

That's what the article says. And evangelicals have not had significant influence in British universities before, especially from the student level.

I think you should concentrate on what most of the article is about, and ignore the mention of Dawkins, which is nothing more than a "I'm not saying this because I'm a Dawkins supporter" disclaimer. As much as I like Dawkins, not everything is about him. No, British university theology departments have not been significantly changed by Dawkins, or others like him, over the past couple of decades. You can look more to people like John Robinson or Don Cupitt for that (because there hasn't been a sudden change) or general developments in the humanities.

[skepticscott]

7. No, everything is not about Dawkins...not remotely.

Hence my question as to why the author of the article needed to mention him not once, but twice, (and both times taking potshots at him), when whatever (unoriginal) point they had could have just as easily been made without mentioning him at all. And my question as to why the OP needed to highlight those mentions, out of everything in the article, if Dawkins really has nothing to do with this.

And no, sorry...pointing our the inordinate (and in some places growing) influence of religious fundamentalists is not new, no matter how many times you claim it. This particular person just chose to pooh-pooh or ignore others people's pointing it out until it affected them directly. And then, miraculously, it became a big deal, worth noticing and commenting on. Gee...where have we seen that kind of behavior before?

[Dorian Gray]

21. I think this is somewhat new for Britain

I lived in Britain in the 90s, and it was very secular and nonreligious. Most Brits I know resent the creeping in of fundamentalism into their society.

[trotsky]

32. And ironically, that's the very kind of thing that Dawkins dislikes so much about religion.

But apparently you can't write any kind of article even mildly criticizing religion without including a gratuitous "I'm no Richard Dawkins!" paragraph, making sure to portray him as the exact analogue of the insane religious fundie who wants to kill people.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. That's ridiculous hyperbole

"making sure to portray him as the exact analogue of the insane religious fundie who wants to kill people."

Bollocks. He said nothing remotely like that. Did you really have nothing else to say apart from something you made up?

[trotsky]

40. Why of course it is.

If the author gets to make shit up, why can't I? "Disciples" of Richard Dawkins?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. All you took away from this article is that the author criticizes Dawkins?

As the actual British DUers--the people who live there--are trying to tell you, obnoxious evangelicals are a new phenomenon for British academia.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Which leads us back to the question:

Why the potshots at Dawkins? What possible purpose does that serve? Other than to join the brigade of those types of responses on that site?

[skepticscott]

27. I've been waiting for an answer to that question

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2014, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

from multiple people. To my eternal unsurprise, all I've heard are crickets.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. To point out that it's worth atheists studying religion in more detail

than can be gone into in one book, which is why an atheist works in a religious studies department.

[skepticscott]

38. A rather silly and unnecessary "point"

Since no one, including Dawkins, has ever claimed that his book is the last word on atheists studying religion. In academic parlance, that would be called "attacking a straw man". Is that what you're claiming he's doing?

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. I don't think he's attacking anything to do with Dawkins

He's attacking the students, their misogyny, and their attempts to shut down debate. I've already said to you "Yes, the article could have been written without that paragraph."

[skepticscott]

42. So this

But those interested in religion need to be able to engage with it by deploying an intellectual and critical rigour that reading Dawkins' God Delusion simply cannot offer.

Isn't attacking Dawkins' book for lacking intellectual and critical rigor? Something he frankly had no need to do? Okey doke, then.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. It's pointing out that an undergraduate course needs to go a lot further than Dawkins

The God Delusion is a book for a general audience.

[skepticscott]

45. Again…silly straw man

Of course a full semester undergraduate course should go beyond what's in any one particular popular book, so why even bother to say so, and why bother to single out this particular book out of all the similar ones out there?

[LanternWaste]

46. This statement is then either incorrect or a slam...

"But those interested in astrophysics need to be able to engage with it by deploying an intellectual and critical rigour that reading Hawking's A Brief History of Time simply cannot offer..."

This statement is then either incorrect or a slam at Stephen Hawking, regardless of his popularity?

[skepticscott]

47. When you understand why

no one would ever make such a silly statement about ABHoT in the first place, but would about The God Delusion, then you'll be getting the point.

[Goblinmonger]

41. OK. But statistics clearly show that atheists do have religious knowledge

So to whom is he speaking with that? It is clearly a "I'm not Dawkins so listen to me" jab. Which is unnecessary and off-putting for his intended audience. That's my only point.

[skepticscott]

28. As noted (again)

the growing influence of religious fundamentalists has been pointed out before, and ignored by people like this author. Did you think his experience was the very first sign of it? But it's only now that the phenomenon has penetrated his little academic bubble that he feels the need to get some attention by pointing it out, attempting to boost his own stature by taking sideswipes at someone well-known (who has no need to be anonymous).

So I'll ask (again)-could whatever point this person had have been made without mentioned Dawkins at all? And if so, why did they feel the need to take potshots?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. How do you boost your stature in an anonymous article?

And since the person is anonymous, you don't know that he ignored anything, either. What he's saying is that students are now trying to direct the syllabus in universities, and that is new.

Yes, the article could have been written without that paragraph. But I am astounded at how offended you are by it. If that's what it takes for you to have hurt feelings on behalf of someone else, it's amazing you manage to read anything online.

[skepticscott]

31. Um, you boost status in your own mind

and make yourself feel superior by trying to score points off of someone famous. And you'd think if the person were honest, they'd have mentioned if this was not the first time they'd pointed this problem out. Unless, as noted (again), they ignored it until it affected them directly.

And it is also noted that you deliberately (though not surprisingly) dodged the question posed of WHY this person felt the need to take potshots at Dawkins (since even you have acknowledged that there was absolutely no need to do so in order to get their message across), and why the OP felt the need to highlight that. Instead you tried to deflect from it with a lame attempt to attribute false feelings and motivations to me. No, I'm not "offended" and no, I didn't have my feelings hurt. I legitimately questioned the motivation and the bias of both the OP and the author of the article they cited (hence my question, which you and everyone else avoided). Why you felt the need to invent something else is another question that will probably go unanswered.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. In their own mind? You are "attributing false feelings and motivations"

This academic, that you don't know, has written this for the newspaper that covers UK academia better than any other. It's a series they've started. It's not there to 'boost status in their own mind'. The 'potshots' that you are so concerned about are a couple of mild comments - one saying they're far from a 'disciple', and one saying there's more to atheists examining religion than reading The God Delusion.

You are writing as if you're offended. You're obsessed by a couple of phrases. Your question wasn't really worth answering, but since you still insist it matters 2 days later: 'again', 'which is nothing more than a "I'm not saying this because I'm a Dawkins supporter" disclaimer'.

You think I made " a lame attempt to attribute false feelings and motivations to me", but you're sure you "legitimately questioned the motivation and the bias of both the OP and the author of the article"? Get over yourself.

[skepticscott]

35. Any obsession here is not mine

It's the author and the OP who seem obsessed with Dawkins, and with taking him down a peg. Otherwise, why mention him at all? Are you going to continue to ignore that question too? Saying that the question isn't worth answering is just the last flail of a bankrupt argument. As is "get over yourself". Seriously? I haven't made this personal, so why you feel you need to is rather telling.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. "nothing more than a "I'm not saying this because I'm a Dawkins supporter" disclaimer" *AGAIN*

I am not ignoring your question. I have answered it repeatedly. That you keep on asking it shows you are obsessed.

The author mentioned Dawkins in 1 paragraph, and wrote far more about the actual topic. cbayer quoted the first 4 paragraphs, and hasn't bothered replying to your obsession about Dawkins, but has instead discussed the subject of the article.

You made it personal in #4: "The OP has a long history of visceral hatred for Richard Dawkins, so calling into question the motivation behind posting this article is more than appropriate."

[skepticscott]

43. No, you haven't answered why he needed to disassociate himself from Dawkins

or take a sideswipe at his book. But keep telling yourself that you have if it makes you feel better.

And calling into question a poster's potential biases and motivations is not "making it personal". "Get over yourself" is. That's just snark that adds nothing, as you know well, but I imagine that also made you feel better.

[Jim__]

8. This is what concerns me about the new "students rights" laws in some of the southern states.

I'm thinking about laws in Louisiana and Texas that, IIRC, give the students the right to question the instructor - a right that should always exist in the classroom, so it's hard to argue against the laws. However, the way the laws are written, it seems the student can question the instructor at any time. In biology class, as soon as the teacher says anything that even implies an evolutionary mechanism, a student can question the entire concept of evolution, and after one student has been answered, another one can then ask a similar question, etc.

Students need the right to question what an instructor says, but the instructor needs the authority to limit questions to a small period of the class time.

[cbayer]

9. I wasn't aware of those.

But I'm not sure I see the harm.

Let them question and question and question.

As is pointed out in another article, evolution (and other science) can be taught in a way that doesn't threaten religious beliefs. A good teacher should be able to take the question and do some good with it (one would hope).

There is a lot of work to done here. The statistics on those that believe in creationism and reject evolution are pretty frightening and whatever we (the left) is doing, it doesn't seem to be working out all that well.

Teaching religion is a different matter, though. If a student rejects all other religion, then it's going to be hard to teach them anything.

[Jim__]

10. The laws were largely opposed as being pro-creationist laws.

That is the clear intent. However, the wording of the laws was about openness in the classroom, the right to question, things like that. The problem with question and question and question is that it can be completely disruptive. If the teacher spends all of the time in every class answering questions about how evolution is possible given, say, entropy, then no actual teaching goes on. I agree that the students should be able to ask their questions, I just think the teacher needs to have enough control to be able to teach the lesson.

[cbayer]

11. I can see how it might be disruptive, but it seems like a good teacher

might make hay with that.

One big problem is that these schools in these locations don't always attract the best teachers.

[skepticscott]

12. A smart and capable teacher

will respond to this sort of thing by pointing out that the answers to these questions have been known for quite a while (while giving the rather easy answer). They will also ask the student what motivated them to ask that particular question, and require them to give both their version of things, and the evidence they have to support it. And then show why that "evidence" doesn't hold up under scrutiny. High school fundies have no depth of understanding of evolutionary science, and are for the most part unable to do anything but parrot what others have told them. The first time they encounter someone who actually has evidence to show they're full of crap, they crumble.

The ultimate lesson being that claims, propositions, hypotheses and theories have to be backed up by evidence, not just declarations, and that those that are not get discarded in favor of those that are. Once a student has had a bogus and unsupported claim called out in front of the class, and had their lack of real evidence exposed, they will think twice before trying it again, and hopefully start to question their sources of indoctrination.

[Igel]

15. True.

Doesn't usually happen.

First off, the teachers don't always have the necessary evidence to account for evolution in the first place. Second, the often don't have the chops necessary to understand in any detail some of the evidence they can produce. Third, their students lack the ability to understand a lot of the evidence unless it's so dumbed down as a model to be belief-based or without a lot of hand-holding (and as soon as you need to hold their hands they've disposed of most critical thinking--they don't have the expertise to critique what you're saying). I've seen kids that got As in biology who said the right things and would be hailed as deep thinkers based on their belief in evolution--but it was belief, not science, because they really didn't understand the evidence, the argument, or even the conclusion. Apart from what was necessary to get an A on the test.

For argument's sake, let's assume that our hypothetical teacher meets the requirements imposed by my three objections in the preceeding paragraph.

So the fundie student comes in with a Creationist claim and it's handily demolished. Has this shown anything? It's rather like having somebody that's very poorly trained in evolution go against one of the self-proclaimed "big guns" of "Creation science." Even if the poorly trained evolutionist is dead right in the overall claim, his thinking can be pulled to pieces, his evidence often be shown to be garbled and contradictory, and the conclusion that evolution is a true (enough) theory to be so utterly flawed as to be risible.

Would we then claim that having such a kid crumble is "teaching" or meritorious on the part of the teacher? Of course not. It's humiliation, it's ridicule, and it's putting an uppity kid in his place. It says only how well that kid could defend an idea. It says nothing about the merits of the idea itself. And if the teacher does it wrong and peppers the kid with questions to produce a kind of cognitive gridlock, then it's bullying. I've seen experienced teachers reduced to gibbering by being beseiged with questions and then, at the end, when asked simple questions about their field they couldn't reliably answer correctly. It was an example of how *not* to teach.

But if a Creationist pokes up his head and asks it is a valuable teaching moment, not for the purpose of quashing Creationism, but for setting out what science is: If Creationism is going to be accepted as a science, it must meet the necessary criteria. Some of the loonier bits of Creationism obviously fail and it's a chance for the teacher to divide between materialistic science and religion. But other parts of "Creation science" are echoed in what my students routinely say. For example, I teach that we can calculate the age of an igneous rock by looking at its half-life, the remaining percentage of a specific radioactive element, and by how much of the element there was to start with. They don't understand that the half-life equation is the solution of a rather standard differential equation modelling decay rates, but they don't need to.

Bam--first question. "How do we know how much there was to start with?" That's the Creationist wedge for dismissing radiologic dating of samples. And I've had teachers who were firm evolutionists and who spouted absolute dates with ease stare at this question when it came up and babble. However, I've never had a kid who was an admitted Creationist ask this question. And I've never had a kid walk away from me, even if it took an hour to explain this in class, unable to explain how we know the original composition of the sample, sources of error, and why even research geologists are sceptical and tend to double-check their methods. In fact, it's built into my lessons. I don't want them to accept it on faith.

[skepticscott]

17. Yes, it's sadly true that a lot of biology teachers

don't understand evolution well enough to debate even on canned, fundie website questions. Hence my qualifier of a "smart and capable teacher".

And no, standing over a student and yelling at them and calling them stupid is not remotely what I suggested, now was it? Holding their feet to the fire…making them sweat a bit? Absolutely. There IS something to be taught there. That in science (and in most other areas, for that matter), it is never acceptable evidence or argument to say "I heard it in church" or "The Bible says so" or "someone told me" or "I read it on this web site". That nothing is ever settled, and that there is always another question. And that in science, claims are subjected to constant, withering examination and scrutiny, and that if you don't come armed with real evidence and understanding, you won't last long. Even if the particular student you're questioning is too brainwashed to ever get that lesson (and yes, some will be, no matter how good the teacher), the lesson will sink in with others. In fact, a science teacher who leads his students to believe that science in the real world works any other way has done them a disservice. If students learn that lesson well in 11th grade, it will be far more beneficial to them in the long run that a momentary embarrassment will be detrimental. if you never had your feet held to the fire by a teacher, you frankly didn't have much of an education.

[Igel]

13. Intent.

That's a tough nut to crack.

The laws were written to be pro-Creationist.

They were amended.

They were passed. A lot of people that passed the amended laws did not intend for them to be pro-Creationist. Some did.

The law doesn't have any "intent" of its own. It has the legislative history it has, which is mixed.

Then there's the implementation of the law. At the level of the state ed agency there was the debate over Creationism. The intent of the implementation was *not* to teach Creationism. It was to let Creationists present their views--and, once presented and discussed, be again sidelined (inasmuch as evolution is not a large part of the curriculum, however much it may underlie parts of the curriculum).

In fact, the implementation is doggedly ambiguous and a lot of science teachers hate it. You teach "theory"--and must, at the same time, discuss what a theory is, how it's formed, what it means, how it's useful. All of which are dandy things. And there's no way that Creationism comes out even, much less ahead, if the discussion is based in state education norms or the norms of most scientific inquiry.

However, the implementation was to declaw Creationism. It couldn't claim to be banned from the classroom. Neither is it allowed to rule in the classroom, unless the teacher decides to ignore state education standards. It allows it to be examined, provided that there's sufficient time.

The drawback to this is the drawback that teaching "critical thinking" in high school has. You need to know enough facts and have enough logic to think critically--first to see through your own confirmation bias, second to examine the assumptions and factual basis of the claim you're investigation. High-schoolers often lack those facts and the knowledge base necessary for this in the first place. A very few have what it takes. Many more have teachers trumpeting what great critical thinkers their kids are because their kids take the facts presented and can regurgitate them to prove the point the teacher wanted them to accept while demolishing the version of the argument that the teacher wanted them to see demolished. (Teachers often have a criticial thinking deficit.)

[Warren Stupidity]

14. creationists can present their views in their churches.

As their viewpoint has nothing to do with science, it does not belong in a science classroom in a public school. This has been long settled by the courts. Passing new laws that violate the constitution does not magically pass constitutional muster.

[cbayer]

16. Great in-depth explanation and much appreciated.

Now I understand where all these challenging questions about "theory" are coming from.

I guess kids are being taught both at home and at church which questions to ask so that they stump or corner the teacher.

It seems that critical thinking skills aren't being taught at any level though, based on responses to I see to internet "science" articles. And this deficit does not appear to be unique to the right.

There was an article posted a couple of weeks ago about a study that showed that people don't develop cognitive decline as they age, it's just that their brains get full.

It was some of the worst science I have seen in a while, but since many people wanted it to be true, they bought it and showed no ability to look at the source, methods or results.

[Lordquinton]

19. Implimintation

How is it being enforced? Can teachers face legal consequences for ignoring, or not sufficiently answering student questions? This whole concept is inane, and completely undermines the student/teacher relationship. It takes control away from the teacher and the kids know it, and they will run wild, because that's what always happens when kids catch wind that the teachers aren't in charge of their classroom.

Creationism can be settled in the classroom with one sentence "This is a science class room, stay on topic" Beliefs need to be left at the door when dealing with science.

[LeftishBrit]

18. This is worrying - especially the treatment of the female lecturer

I suspect that some of this is indirectly due to the tripling of tuition fees in the UK. Not only may this make students in general more demanding, but it may have changed the demographics of those who choose to take religious studies in certain British universities. Though I don't have the latest figures, I know that initially the fee hike led to a 15% drop in applications for theology/religious studies (as compared with a 9% drop in university applications overall). This is probably due to the fact that many students are more likely nowadays to choose courses that are likely to lead to a well-paid, or at least secure career, from which they can pay off their debts, than to explore ideas for the sake of exploring them.

Thus, it is possible that those students who do study religious studies at university include fewer people who want to explore ideas and culture for their own sake, and more of those, who either wish to be ordained and pursue a career in the church (not an overwhelming number these days), or have an ideological 'call' to promote religion.

But also, as I've noted a few times, while Britain is on the whole very secular, and the Church of England on the whole relatively liberal, there is also an increasing and unpleasant political aggressiveness among some conservative religious groups; and this may be reflected in some student groups. Certainly evangelical groups have always targeted university students, though generally through extracurricular 'Christian Union' societies, rather than by trying to influence the academic content of courses, which is a bit more worrying.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. There was the Bristol University Christian Union incident a couple of years ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/05/bristol-universitys-christian-union-always-banned-women-speaking-_n_2242660.html?1354704891

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/05/bristol-university-christian-union-female-speakers

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/dec/07/bristol-university-christian-union-anti-women

where it became clear they had had an effective ban on women speakers (or presidents) for some years, then someone proposed allowing women speakers as long as their husbands were present (which, somehow, looks even worse) and someone objected to that as too liberal. It appears they were finally shamed into just allowing women speakers, whether or not they had a husband to chaperone them (shades of Saudi Arabia ...). Their website currently lists a female vice-president.

Yes, the spread into the course content is worrying.

[cbayer]

22. Great information.

Are there similar decreases in other majors that don't easily lend themselves to jobs?

I had also heard that there was a growing number of evangelical churches in the UK.

[gtar100]

23. This *is* what the Christian religion does in societies.

Consider the effect it had on Alexandria, the stifling influence it had in Europe through the Dark Ages, its role in the disintegration of indigenous cultures throughout the world, etc. It is trumpeting belief over critical thinking which, when coupled with the extreme threat of eternal damnation versus eternal heavenly bliss, leads to very unreasonable actions. It's a perfect concoction of ideas to keep the human body and mind from developing naturally. At its core is the basic assumption that people are wretched and sinful and the goal then is to escape who and what we are at the most fundamental level. There could be no worse a thought to put into a child's mind than that, yet it is epidemic in our world.

In fairness, Islam has the same corrupting influence. It's not just Christianity, nor does it have to be just these two. Fundamentalism is probably a great hurdle for collective minds to overcome universally.

Personally, I believe that this way of thinking in religious circles is a matter of interpretation of the religious doctrine. This anonymous teacher probably opened more hearts and minds to the wonders of life than any of these fundamentalists who are messing with her classroom.

[xfundy]

26. Hopefully the questions go out into the real world.

where, in the light of day, none of the answers can survive the laff test. I mean, come on.

[cbayer]

36. What questions? I am really missing your point here.